> and that they rarely do things out of sheer spite.
The Voigtlander Prominent is such a camera. Just use one. Designed for a Masochist Photographer by a Sadist Engineer.
The Voigtlander Prominent is such a camera. Just use one. Designed for a Masochist Photographer by a Sadist Engineer.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Brian,
Thereby raising, of course, the question of whether a sadist should be cruel to a masochist, or whether that would just be a example of being cruel to be kind.
Actually, I quite like (35mm) Prominents, though I was not impressed by the original 6x9cm version. Let's just say that the designer of the 35mm version had his own way of doing things, unimpeded by expense, weight, complexity and improbability.
Cheers,
R.
Masochist to the Sadist- Hit me! Hit Me!
Sadist- NO, I won't!
Crazy design of a camera. But the lenses make them very worthwhile.
Sadist- NO, I won't!
Crazy design of a camera. But the lenses make them very worthwhile.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Mike,Hi Roger,
I agree there is a difference between wet-blanketing and constructive efforts by playing devil's advocate. I always run stuff by others and ask them to play devil's advocate since it helps define what I don't know. When it is no longer constructive, to me it falls into the wet blanket category and is no longer about the project or helping someone, and more about the wet blanket's own issues. I wasn't referring to you as the wet blanket, I want to make clear.
I like puzzles, and I think the digital back project for Leica M's or even Nikon Fs is a cool engineering project. Practical? Not likely due to time and financial limitations. But from a learning perspective, it would be fun and the gaps in one's knowledge would show up pretty quick, which is sometimes entertaining and worth knowing.
Working with sensors and code is currently well beyond my ken, but to me the details seem within the range of what is possible (again, maybe not practical). I picked up a used Leicavit, and I like the extra length even though I probably won't use the winding feature. I would even be cool with an old M-motor-sized housing for the necessary electronic bits.
I think it would be interesting if the discussion ignored the practical/financial/need side of the project. There are plenty of opinions on this from 'experts' and non-experts (myself). From strictly an engineering (building) perspective, is there an insurmountable problem with putting a digital back on a Leica M body? I'd especially like to hear from those with optical-mechanical-electrical engineering experience. I have a colleague who designs cameras and particle counters from scratch, and I'll ask him about it when I see him. He's a puzzle guy too, and enjoys developing hare-brained solutions with me just for fun.
Dunno, but probably not, if the size of the digiback is not a issue and if you don't mind sawing the M up to make it fit. Pushing the sensor through the trapdoor in the back and finding a way to lock it in place with the required degree of accuracy is a non-trivial exercise. Using an optical fibre block won't work (I have a friend who blew many tens of thousands on that one before concluding it was impractical) so the sensor has to be in the film gate, and personally, in the interests of precise location, I'd like it to be firmly mounted to the film gate.
What you end up with, therefore, is a written-off camera with a huge hunch back on it (think of something the size of a Hasselblad back). So a lot depends on what you call 'insurmountable'.
Cheers,
R.
It is easier to make a digital back for a camera with a removable back. There will need to be some crop factor, and given the available sensors, probably would be 1.3x.
And on the optical fiber extension: MY Optical Engineer made one that worked, but the cost to fabricate it would be cost-prohibitive for a consumer grade device. Bernie also designed optics that preserved the phase of the wavefront as it passed through the lens to form an image. It required formulating the metal used in the optics mount to maintain performance across a temperature range.
And on the optical fiber extension: MY Optical Engineer made one that worked, but the cost to fabricate it would be cost-prohibitive for a consumer grade device. Bernie also designed optics that preserved the phase of the wavefront as it passed through the lens to form an image. It required formulating the metal used in the optics mount to maintain performance across a temperature range.